Saturday, June 29, 2013

Here is one for the “no kidding” category. It also is a story for the “why are we studying this” category. LOL Your ability to read and understand your home loan – and crunch the numbers yourself – plays a major role in your likelihood of default. According to a report from researchers at the Columbia Business School, the Federal Reserve of Atlanta, and the University of Zurich, borrowers who are “math-challenged” are five times more likely to default on their home loans. Of course, in these politically correct times, “mathematically challenged” may mean a lot of things. The study covered the loans of borrowers who held mortgages issued in 2006 and 2007. Twenty five percent of borrowers who scored in the lowest bracket for math skills defaulted on their mortgages within five years of getting the loan while only five percent of the top tier defaulted. Researchers said that they covered for differences in “overall intelligence” by measuring “verbal and general IQs…math skills, and control[ing] for socioeconomic factors.” They really made certain that this “waste of time” study was done correctly.

The default numbers were not affected when the researchers separated the groups based on the type of mortgage that they had. Higher and lower-risk borrowers still defaulted along the same math-ability lines no matter what type of mortgage they took out. “Those lacking [math skills] will still get in more trouble later on even if they pick a plain vanilla mortgage,” explained Stephan Meier, one of the study’s authors. Ultimately, the difference did not occur in actual financial decision-making, but in the ability to avert a foreclosure. The authors suggested that “greater cognitive abilities may have helped some borrowers find a way out of delinquency”. The only surprise here is that the study was not performed by government (tax payer) funds. LOL LOL LOL

Friday, June 28, 2013

I was raised in a manner that "if you cannot trust family, who can you trust". Families need to stick togther and be the one place for love and support. WELL, not in this story!!!! Shocking as it may be...here is a truly sad story about an individual - war hero and his struggles and family contribution to the struggles.

It is not always the bank that is the bad guy. A 92-year-old World War II veteran found this out the hard way after raising nearly $140,000 online to help him buy back his home from his daughter, who is trying to evict him. The man built the house more than five decades ago and the value of the house and land upon which it sits is about $50,000. His daughter used a power of attorney to convey the deed of the house to herself and is now seeking her father’s eviction. Upon learning of the deed transfer, the man switched power of attorney to his granddaughter, but it was too late to save the house. The daughter has refused an offer of $60,000, saying that $100,000 is more realistic in her eyes. She also appears to believe that her father should be living in a nursing home instead of alone with part-time care. This may be a legitimate reason, but SHEEZ, she is evicting her father!!!

Unfortunately, since the daughter had power of attorney and the right to transfer the deed, it appears unlikely that the situation will have a happy resolution for the veteran. Although those with power of attorney usually do not have the right to transfer assets to themselves out of the estate they oversee, in this instance the statute of limitations had passed before the deed transfer was discovered. The man and his granddaughter used GoFundMe.com to raise the money to buy back his house and promise to be “completely transparent with how the money is used.” It will likely go toward finding him a new home. “He never thought this would happen,” said his granddaughter.

There was a little known Supreme Court decision that did not receive the same fanfare as some of the other cases before the Court. The recent property-rights ruling went in favor of landowners and land developers. The ruling could have far-reaching effects on how government handles property owners’ decisions that “cause wider harm or social burdens” on the community. The case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, revolved around the property owner (Koontz)’s desire to develop about four acres of a 14.9-acre wetland property. When Koontz sought a permit for the development from the local water management district (St. Johns), he was told that he could choose either to develop only one acre or pay for contractors to make improvements to government-owned wetlands in the same watershed in exchange for a full permit. Koontz opted to take neither option and sued, saying that his property was essentially “taken for public use without just compensation” because he was not able to develop his land without agreeing to “extortionate demands.”

Backed by the National Association of Home Builders, civil liberties groups, and property-rights advocacy groups, Koontz’ case spent 11 years working its way through the legal system. The Supreme Court ended up siding with Koontz, saying that the local watershed “impermissibly burden the right not to have property taken without just compensation” by creating a set of parameters around the receipt of the desired permit that prevented Koontz from using his own land for his own benefit. The vote was 5-4 in favor of Koontz, with Justice Alito writing in support of the decision that “land-use permit applicants are especially vulnerable to…coercion…because the government often has broad discretion to deny a permit that is worth far more than the property it would like to take” and that “government…may not leverage its legitimate interest in mitigation to pursue governmental ends that lack an essential nexus and rough proportionality to [social costs of the proposal]”.

Not surprisingly, many property owners are breathing a collective sigh of relief that their rights are being further defined and protected, but critics of the decision warn that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent since technically no physical thing was taken away from Koontz. Justice Kagan, who wrote the dissenting opinion on the case, said that the ruling “threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations….to heightened constitutional scrutiny” and “I would not embark on so unwise an adventure”. Why an I am not surprised that Justice Kagan dissented on this.....

Thursday, June 27, 2013

There was a little known Supreme Court decision that did not receive the same fanfare as some of the other cases before the Court. The recent property-rights ruling went in favor of landowners and land developers. The ruling could have far-reaching effects on how government handles property owners’ decisions that “cause wider harm or social burdens” on the community. The case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, revolved around the property owner (Koontz)’s desire to develop about four acres of a 14.9-acre wetland property. When Koontz sought a permit for the development from the local water management district (St. Johns), he was told that he could choose either to develop only one acre or pay for contractors to make improvements to government-owned wetlands in the same watershed in exchange for a full permit. Koontz opted to take neither option and sued, saying that his property was essentially “taken for public use without just compensation” because he was not able to develop his land without agreeing to “extortionate demands.”

Backed by the National Association of Home Builders, civil liberties groups, and property-rights advocacy groups, Koontz’ case spent 11 years working its way through the legal system. The Supreme Court ended up siding with Koontz, saying that the local watershed “impermissibly burden the right not to have property taken without just compensation” by creating a set of parameters around the receipt of the desired permit that prevented Koontz from using his own land for his own benefit. The vote was 5-4 in favor of Koontz, with Justice Alito writing in support of the decision that “land-use permit applicants are especially vulnerable to…coercion…because the government often has broad discretion to deny a permit that is worth far more than the property it would like to take” and that“government…may not leverage its legitimate interest in mitigation to pursue governmental ends that lack an essential nexus and rough proportionality to [social costs of the proposal]”.

Not surprisingly, many property owners are breathing a collective sigh of relief that their rights are being further defined and protected, but critics of the decision warn that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent since technically no physical thing was taken away from Koontz. Justice Kagan, who wrote the dissenting opinion on the case, said that the ruling “threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations….to heightened constitutional scrutiny” and “I would not embark on so unwise an adventure”. Why an I am not surprised that Justice Kagan dissented on this.....